DSLRUsers.com

Can somebody tell me if there is a big difference between the Nikon Micro 60mm & 105mm.

Is there a big difference in image quality ?
Is it worth the extra $$$

Thanks,

Mic.

Everything I've read suggests they are pretty equal, with the 60mm perhaps a smidge sharper.

The main difference as I understand it is the working distances, with the 60mm requiring you to be very close (cms) for macro work, and the 105mm providing you a little more working distance. Depending on your subject, this may or may not be an issue.

Of course this is only based on reading I'm considering the 105mm, but only because it fits better into my set of lenses.

I saw a great post on this at dpreview... I cant remember where though (I might get unlazy and go look it up)

Basically it went like this: the wider angle lens will give you more distorsion but at the same time more three-dimensionality.. it the perspective becomes more...

while the telephoto will give you squarer images at the loss of some of that enhanced perspective

Thanks guys,

Thats what I thought as well, just have to decide now.

Mic.

I have been looking into getting a Macro and have been lookin at a 105 Tamron 90 or Sigma 105. I would love another Nikon lenes but the $ ouch
One thing I read that I never considered was what the writer called the Maximum focus distance which sounded strange because that is never talked about in the specs but gets right into what you are going to shoot
The way I understood it was How close do you have to get to the subject to get the shot you want?
For inanimate objects you can get as close as you want but if you want bees, bugs or spiders how close are they going to let you get before they bite or run? Then you have to take in the higher magnification factor or the 105
I may have this wrong but it made sense when I read it. I may have found it in the dp forum I read so much it's hard to keep a bibliography.
So what are you shooting? Asked over and over but it does matter

Rich